Google Llc v. G. Venkatachalam

Madras HC11 Mar 2025OSA/20/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; written statement; 156 days; 90 days Civil Procedure Code; Google LLC India Liaison Office; YouTube LLC; intermediary; URL; takedown of defamatory video; interview video 17.02.2024 18.02.2024; Shreya Singhal; FIITJEE Limited; OSA No. 20 of 2025; CMP No. 1942 of 2025; CS No. 48 of 2024; A.No. 5973 of 2024; Madras High Court; Rs. 1,00,000 to High Court Legal Services Authority; no costs; Sun TV; Kalaignar TV; Dhinakaran; Tamil Murasu

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed and delay of 156 days in filing the written statement condoned, subject to the appellant remitting Rs.1,00,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Authority within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the judgment, upon compliance of which the appeal shall be taken to be allowed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP No. 1942 of 2025) closed.

Google Llc Vs G. Venkatachalam — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶117

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 156 days in filing the written statement is liable to be condoned.

¶99

Court's answer

The delay in filing a written statement is not to be considered or allowed in as routine a manner as urged by the appellant.

¶103

Ratio / Principle

Since under the Civil Procedure Code the written statement had to be filed within 90 days from receipt of summons, the appellant (whose condonation affidavit was executed by its Delhi-based attorney) should have ensured the requisite particulars were culled in time, particularly in the present age of advanced technology.

¶107

Key takeaways

No specific instances of difficulty or delay in collecting particulars were cited; the only defence in the written statement — that the URL of the allegedly offensive video had not been supplied — was a legitimate plea but could well have figured in a written statement filed within time and does not explain the delay of 156 days.ratio¶110
If, after trial, the Court finds that the video contained offensive/defamatory statements, it would necessarily have to be taken down, though only after the intermediary is provided with the requisite URL.obiter¶94

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Division Bench: Dr. Anita Sumanth J. and C. Kumarappan J.), OSA No. 20 of 2025, 11-03-2025 — Google LLC India Liaison Office, D6 in CS No. 48 of 2024 (defamation suit by G. Venkatachalam concerning interview videos of 17-18.02.2024), challenged dismissal of its application to condone a 156-day delay in filing its written statement. Held: (i) delay in filing a written statement is not to be condoned as a matter of routine; (ii) the excuses offered — need to secure instructions from different departments of Google's US headquarters, and the plaintiff's failure to supply the URL of the offending video — did not justify the delay, no specific instance of difficulty being cited, and the URL plea, though legitimate, could have been raised in a written statement filed within the 90-day period under the Civil Procedure Code; (iii) balancing the parties' interests, the delay was condoned subject to the appellant remitting Rs. 1,00,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Authority within four weeks, upon compliance with which the appeal stands allowed; no costs; connected stay petition (CMP No. 1942 of 2025) closed. On the precedents: the Shreya Singhal (SC) proposition that an intermediary must abide by court orders to take down objectionable content was acknowledged but did not advance the appellant's case; the FIITJEE (Delhi HC) proposition that takedown compliance is possible only where URLs are furnished was accepted without quarrel.

¶1

2025:MHC:686

¶2

OSA No. 20 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 11-03-2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶8

OSA No. 20 of 2025 AND

¶9

CMP NO. 1942 OF 2025

¶10

Google Llc India Liaison Office, Unit No.26, The Executive Centre, Level8, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 001.

¶11

Appellant(s)

¶12

¶13

G. Venkatachalam S/o. K. Govindan, No.91/169, Kattuchothanvalavu, Sooramangalam Post, Solampallam, Salem District.

¶14

2.A.V. Raju

¶15

D.No.1/436, Paarai Post, Azhagapuram, Salem District -16.

¶16

3.Sun Tv Network Limited (corporate Office)

¶17

Murasolimaran Towers, No.73, MRC

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

OSA No. 20 of 2025

¶20

Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai - 28.

¶21

4.Kalaignar Tv Pvt Ltd No.367/369, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai - 018.

¶22

5.The Editor Dhinakaran Newspaper, Kal Publication Murasoli Maran Towers, IIIrd Floor No.73, MRC Nagar, Chennai - 028, Tamil Nadu.

¶23

6.The Editor Tamil Murasu, No.229, Kutcheri Road, Vinayaka Nagar Colony, Mylapore, Chennai - 004.

¶24

7.You Tube Llc Cherry Avenue, San Bruno California 94066, USA.

¶25

Respondent(s)

¶26

CMP No. 1942 of 2025

¶27

Google Llc India Liaison Office, Unit No.26, The Executive Centre, Level 8, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 001.

¶28

Appellant(s)

¶29

¶30

G. Venkatachalam https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

OSA No. 20 of 2025

¶32

S/o. K. Govindan, No.91/169, Kattuchothanvalavu, Sooramangalam Post, Solampallam, Salem District.

¶33

2.A.V. Raju

¶34

D.No.1/436, Paarai Post, Azhagapuram, Salem District -16.

¶35

3.Sun Tv Network Limited (corporate Office) Murasolimaran Towers, No.73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai - 28.

¶36

4.Kalaignar Tv Pvt Ltd No.367/369, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai - 018.

¶37

5.The Editor Dhinakaran Newspaper, Kal Publication Murasoli Maran Towers, IIIrd Floor No.73, MRC Nagar, Chennai - 028, Tamil Nadu.

¶38

6.The Editor Tamil Murasu, No.229, Kutcheri Road, Vinayaka Nagar Colony, Mylapore, Chennai - 004.

¶39

7.You Tube Llc Cherry Avenue, San Bruno California 94066, USA.

¶40

OSA No. 20 of 2025

¶41

Respondent(s)

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

OSA No. 20 of 2025

¶44

PRAYER

¶45

To allow the appeal, set aside the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by Honble

¶46

Court in A.NO.5973 of 2024 in CS No.48 of 2024.

¶47

CMP No. 1942 of 2025

¶48

PRAYER

¶49

To pass an order of ad-interim stay of all proceedings in CS No.48 of 2024 until

¶50

disposal of the present appeal.

¶51

OSA No. 20 of 2025

¶52

For Appellant(s): Mr.G. Balasubramanian For M/s Leela And Co. For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Sai Manohar For R1. Mr.Vinayaga Vishwa For R2. Mr.D.Prajeish For M/s.King And Patridge, For R3. Mr.S.Manuraj For R4. R7 Given Up - Endorsement made by the counsel.

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

¶55

This appeal is filed by D6 in the suit. The suit was filed by R1 in this appeal,

¶56

an individual, and the prayer in the suit was for permanent injunction restraining

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the first defendant in suit, being R2 in this appeal, from granting an interview or

¶58

OSA No. 20 of 2025

¶59

circulating news item in any media including social media containing false and

¶60

defamatory allegations against the plaintiff, publishing or circulating any article or

¶61

interview containing false and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff.

¶62

2.In addition, a mandatory injunction was sought directing D6, the present

¶63

appellant, and R7 (D7 in suit), (You Tube LLC based at United States of America)

¶64

to remove the online video pertaining to an interview of R1 given to R2 (D2 in suit) and R3 (D3 in suit) on 17.02.2024 and 18.02.2024, said to contain defamatory and derogatory allegations against R1 assassinating his character apart from containing degrading allegations against certain actors, damages and costs.

¶65

The parties are referred to as per their array in this appeal. After the

¶66

receipt of summons, there has been a delay of 156 days in filing of written

¶67

statement by the appellant for which an application for condonation was filed. The

¶68

learned Judge has dismissed the application by order dated 22.11.2024, as against

¶69

which the present appeal has been instituted.

¶70

4.The basis of the plea for condonation was that necessary instructions for

¶71

drafting of written statement had to be secured from different Departments of

¶72

Google Headquartered at the United States of America. This is the only reason set https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73

OSA No. 20 of 2025

¶74

out in the application for condonation. The appellant also points out that the

¶75

plaintiff had not provided the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of the video said

¶76

to contain the defamatory statements of R1. It was hence impossible for the

¶77

appellant to identify the same and remove the offending video from the internet till

¶78

such time the URL was furnished.

¶79

Mr.G.Balasubramanian, learned counsel, who appears for the appellant,

¶80

Google LLC reiterates the plea for condonation as put forth in the application.

¶81

6.Reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [(2015) 5 SCC 1] and of the Delhi High Court in FIITJEE Limited v. Vidya Mandir Classes Ltd. [LA.No.16137/2021 in CS.No.656 of 2021]. He would incidentally point out that it was routine to allow applications

¶82

for delay in filing of written statement and hence, the learned Judge was in error in

¶83

taking such a rigid stand.

¶84

7.Per contra, Mr.R.Sai Manohar, learned counsel appearing for R1 would

¶85

support the impugned decree and judgment, assailing which the present appeal has

¶86

been filed. Though initially a defence was taken that the offending videos had been

¶87

filed along with the plaint and contained the requisite URLs, this is found to be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶88

OSA No. 20 of 2025

¶89

incorrect as the videos are not a format that contain the URL. Hence, and to this

¶90

extent, it remains for the appellant to furnish the requisite particulars of URL.

¶91

8.We have heard learned counsel and perused the materials placed on record.

¶92

9.In Shreya Singhal (supra), the Court held that an intermediary is bound to

¶93

abide by the Court order or Notification from appropriate Government or its

¶94

agency to take down objectionable content/videos from the internet. In the present case, it is not in question that, if this Court ultimately finds after trial that the video did contain offensive/defamatory statements, R1 would necessarily have to take the same down, though after being provided with the requisite URL. Hence, reliance

¶95

on the judgement in Shreya Singhal (supra) does not advance the case of the appellant in any way.

¶96

10.In FIITJEE Limited (supra), the Delhi High Court has reiterated that it is

¶97

only in cases where URLs are provided that an intermediary would be in a position

¶98

to comply with Court orders to take down offensive videos. There is no quarrel on this proposition.

¶99

11.We are, in this appeal concerned with whether the delay of 156 days in

¶100

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶101

OSA No. 20 of 2025

¶102

filing the written statement is liable to be condoned. We do not believe that the

¶103

delay in filing written statement must be considered or allowed in as routine a

¶104

manner as urged by the appellant.

¶105

12.More importantly, we do not agree with the reasons seeking to justify the

¶106

delay of 156 days. The learned Judge finds, on a perusal of the affidavit that it has

¶107

been executed by the attorney of the appellant based in Delhi. Since under the Civil Procedure Code, it is necessary that the written statement be filed within 90 days

¶108

from date of receipt of summons, it should have been ensured that the requisite particulars were culled in time, particularly in the present age of advanced technology.

¶109

No specific instances leading to difficulty or delay in collection of

¶110

particulars has been cited by the appellant. In fact, the only defence in the written statement is that the URL of the allegedly offensive video has not been supplied, in

¶111

the absence of which, an intermediary was not in a position to locate the video.

¶112

This appears to have been the defence from day one onwards, and this

¶113

plea, a legitimate one, could well have figured in the written statement filed within

¶114

time and does not explain the delay of 156 days. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶115

OSA No. 20 of 2025

¶116

In light of the discussion as above, and balancing the interests of the

¶117

parties, we allow this appeal and condone the delay of 156 days in filing of written

¶118

statement though putting the appellant to terms.

¶119

16.The appellant shall remit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)

¶120

to the High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of four (4) weeks from

¶121

date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, upon compliance of which, this appeal

¶122

shall be taken to be allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶123

(ANITA SUMANTH J.)(C.KUMARAPPAN J.)

11-03-2025

Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

¶128

Internet:Yes

¶129

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶130

OSA No. 20 of 2025

¶131

¶132

1.G. Venkatachalam

¶133

S/o. K. Govindan, No.91/169,

¶134

Kattuchothanvalavu, Sooramangalam

¶135

Post, Solampallam, Salem District.

¶136

2.A.V. Raju

¶137

D.No.1/436, Paarai Post, Azhagapuram,

¶138

Salem District -16.

¶139

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶140

OSA No. 20 of 2025

¶141

3.Sun Tv Network Limited (corporate Office) Murasolimaran Towers, No.73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai - 28.

¶142

4.Kalaignar Tv Pvt Ltd No.367/369, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai - 018.

¶143

5.The Editor Dhinakaran Newspaper, Kal Publication Murasoli Maran Towers, IIIrd Floor No.73, MRC Nagar, Chennai - 028, Tamil Nadu.

¶144

6.The Editor Tamil Murasu, No.229, Kutcheri Road, Vinayaka Nagar Colony, Mylapore, Chennai - 004.

¶145

7.You Tube Llc Cherry Avenue, San Bruno California 94066, USA.

¶146

CMP No. 1942 of 2025

¶147

¶148

1.G. Venkatachalam S/o. K. Govindan, No.91/169, Kattuchothanvalavu, Sooramangalam Post, Solampallam, Salem District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶149

OSA No. 20 of 2025

¶150

2.A.V. Raju

¶151

D.No.1/436, Paarai Post, Azhagapuram, Salem District -16.

¶152

3.Sun Tv Network Limited (corporate Office) Murasolimaran Towers, No.73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai - 28.

¶153

4.Kalaignar Tv Pvt Ltd No.367/369, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai - 018.

¶154

5.The Editor Dhinakaran Newspaper, Kal Publication Murasoli Maran Towers, IIIrd Floor No.73, MRC Nagar, Chennai - 028, Tamil Nadu.

¶155

6.The Editor

¶156

Tamil Murasu, No.229, Kutcheri Road, Vinayaka Nagar Colony, Mylapore, Chennai - 004.

¶157

7.You Tube Llc

¶158

Cherry Avenue, San Bruno California 94066, USA.

¶159

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶160

OSA No. 20 of 2025

¶161

DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN J.

¶162

¶163

OSA No. 20 of 2025 AND CMP NO. 1942 OF 2025

¶164

11-03-2025

¶165

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Google Llc v. G. Venkatachalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Google Llc v. G. Venkatachalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Neelambal Vs The Inspector of Registration

The Inspector General of Registration Vs Nellore Sarojanamma

The Commissioner, Vs K Srinivasan

Haresh Tahilramani (Deceased), Neetu M.Hinduja (Deaseed)), 1.AANCHAL Sunil Duseja Vs Jayesh B Dolia

Ru-Ah Ministries Vs B.Anand Raja Durai

S.Perumalsamy Vs K.M.Kishore